|
|
|
Virgin Mobile sinks with wider 3Q loss
Business Law Info |
2007/11/16 17:14
|
Despite an analysts' upgrade, shares of Virgin Mobile USA Inc. fell Friday to their lowest point since the company's recent trading debut after the company said its third-quarter loss widened as operating expenses rose. The wireless service provider's shares fell $1.54, or 14.4 percent, to $9.19 Friday. Earlier, the shares traded as low as $8.07. Virgin Mobile said late Thursday that its third-quarter loss widened to $7.3 million, compared with a loss of $5.1 million in the year-ago quarter. The company said its pro-forma loss totaled 15 cents per share, compared with a loss of 10 cents per share in the year-ago period. Revenue rose year over year to $319.5 million from $271 million, as an increase in service revenue overshadowed a decline in equipment sales. In a note to clients Friday, Stanford Group Company analyst Michael Gary Nelson upgraded the stock to "Hold" from "Sell," saying challenges the company faces -- such as increasing competition -- are well balanced with opportunities for raising shareholder value. The analyst called Virgin Mobile's third-quarter results "mixed" and its fourth-quarter outlook for between 350,000 and 400,000 net customer additions "weak." But he also said its guidance for 2008 EBITDA -- or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization -- of between $155 million and $175 million is strong. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Rebukes Bush Fuel Economy Plan
Court Feed News |
2007/11/16 15:23
|
A federal appeals court sharply rejected the Bush administration's new pollution standards 'for most sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans and ordered regulators Thursday to draft a new plan that's tougher on auto emissions. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration failed to address why the so-called light trucks are allowed to pollute more than passenger cars and didn't properly assess greenhouse gas emissions when it set new minimum miles-per-gallon requirements for models in 2008 to 2011. The court also said the administration failed to include in the new rules heavier trucks driven as commuter vehicles, among several other deficiencies found. Judge Betty Fletcher wrote that the administration "cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards." Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the administration was in the process of reviewing the decision. "We will consider all of our options," he said. California and 10 other states, two cities and four environmental groups sued the administration after it announced the new fuel economy standards last year. "It's a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration and its failed energy policy," California Attorney General Jerry Brown said. The court ordered the administration to draw up new rules as soon as possible, but automakers complained Thursday they're already deep into developing light trucks through 2011 based on the new standards. "Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made toward increasing fleet-wide fuel economy," said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. McCurdy said the industry is dedicated to developing more fuel efficient automobiles, "but adequate lead time is necessary in order to fully integrate these technologies into the marketplace." Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced to much fanfare the new rules in March 2006, proclaiming they were the "most ambitious fuel economy goals" yet for SUVs and their ilk. Mineta called the plan "pragmatic," balancing fuel conservation against auto industry costs and jobs. The standards required most passenger trucks to boost fuel economy from 22.5 mpg in 2008 to at least 23.5 mpg by 2010. Passenger cars are required to meet a 27.5 mpg average. "The idea of raising vehicle efficiency 1 mile per gallon is pathetic and shocking," said Brown, who along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Bush administration over its refusal to act on California's fuel economy plan for cars in the state. The court ordered the White House to examine why it continues to consider light trucks differently than cars. Regulators made a distinction between cars and light trucks decades ago when most trucks were used for commercial purposes. NHTSA had argued that it considered the intent of the manufacturer in making light trucks, rather than their actual highway use, in developing the new fuel standards. "But this overlooks the fact that many light trucks today are manufactured primarily for transporting passengers," Fletcher wrote for the three-judge panel. Fletcher also wrote that the administration failed to consider the benefit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "It did, however, include an analysis of the employment and sales impacts of more stringent standards on manufacturers," Fletcher wrote. The court also took the administration to task for refusing to include in the new standards trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds, a class that includes the Hummer H2, Ford F250 and other popular large vehicles. The court ordered NHTSA to develop fuel standards for these large trucks or give a better reason than the agency's argument that it has never regulated those large trucks and that more testing needs to be done. "This historic ruling vindicates our fight against fuel economy standards that are a complete sham and a gift to the auto industry," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who also joined the lawsuit. Along with California and Connecticut, plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed last year include Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York City, the District of Columbia and several environmental groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court blocks execution of child killer
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/16 15:22
|
The U.S. Supreme Court halted the execution of convicted child killer Mark Dean Schwab on Thursday, hours before he was scheduled to die. The move by the high court was widely expected as it considers the appeals of two Kentucky inmates challenging the same lethal three-drug combination used in Florida. The court has blocked executions in three other states since accepting the Kentucky case Sept. 25. The state Attorney General Bill McCollum's office said it would not challenge the court's decision. Vicki Rios-Martinez, the victim's mother, was unhappy with the court ruling. "This is like 16 years ago. Today was the same kind of emotions, the same kind of chaos, the same kind of roller coaster ride," she said. "The system has disappointed us over and over and over again." Schwab was sentenced to death for the murder of 11-year-old Junny Rios-Martinez. In March 1991, the month Schwab was released from prison on a sexual assault sentence, a newspaper published a picture of Junny for winning a kite contest. He gained the confidence of Junny's family, claiming he was with the newspaper and was writing an article on the boy. On April 18, he called Junny's school and pretended to be Junny's father and asked that the boy meet him after school. Two days later, Schwab called his aunt in Ohio and claimed that someone named Donald had made him kidnap and rape the boy. He was later arrested and told police where he left Junny's body — in a footlocker in a rural part of Brevard County. Schwab's execution was to be the first in Florida since the botched execution of Angel Diaz on Dec. 13. It took 34 minutes for Diaz to die — twice as long as normal — because the guards pushed the needles through his veins. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds convictions of Tyco executives
Court Feed News |
2007/11/16 12:26
|
Their names became shorthand for corporate greed, but former Tyco International Ltd. executives L. Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz have argued they were entitled to the money and perks they were accused of taking. A state appeals court said Thursday it disagreed, upholding the 2005 convictions of ex-CEO Kozlowski and former finance chief Swartz. Their massive theft and purchases of such luxuries as a $6,000 shower curtain came to symbolize corporate excess and cupidity.
"The evidence amply supports the conclusion that defendants took unauthorized bonuses from Tyco in 1999 and 2000," the appeals panel wrote in a 4-0 decision.
Kozlowski, 60, and Swartz, 47, were each sentenced to 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy, grand larceny, securities fraud and falsifying business records. Prosecutors say the two amassed $170 million in unauthorized compensation and $430 million through stock manipulation.
The men used the money to finance lavish lifestyles that, in Kozlowski's case, included a $6,000 gold-threaded shower curtain and a $15,000 umbrella stand shaped like a small terrier, according to the prosecution.
Last month, defense lawyers argued before the appellate judges that neither man had taken money _ including bonuses and forgiven loans, money for investments, expensive real estate and personal luxuries _ that he was not due.
During the trial, Kozlowski and Swartz argued that one member of the company's compensation committee had approved some of the bonuses.
But the judges cited testimony showing that all but one compensation committee member had no knowledge of the bonus payments, and that even the defense agreed that only the whole committee had the authority to grant compensation.
The court also noted there was no written record of the payouts in the materials prepared for the compensation committee, and none in the committee's reports to the board.
"The absence of any reference to these transactions in the chain of documentation available to the committee clearly demonstrates defendants' coverup of their thievery," the appellate judges wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Court of Appeals to determine long-arm laws
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/16 11:31
|
The state's highest court must decide under what circumstances New York's "long-arm" law can be invoked to give the state personal jurisdiction over someone who is not physically within the state.
The Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday from Rachel Ehrenfeld, the author of a book about the funding of terrorism. The Manhattan author is seeking protection from British court judgments obtained by a Saudi billionaire who has successfully sued other authors in the United Kingdom.
Ehrenfeld, author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed _ and How to Stop It," published in 2003, filed a U.S. federal suit against Saudi businessman Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, in response to a libel suit he filed against her in England.
"He single-handedly silenced the American media from writing about him and about other individual Saudis who are funding terrorism," Ehrenfeld said Thursday. "This is a deliberate thought ... and since my work is about exposing those who fund terrorism, I feel it is my duty to stop it."
Attorneys for Bin Mahfouz did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Although Ehrenfeld's lawsuit was filed in federal courts, much of it deals directly with New York state law, so the state court is charged with interpreting that law before the issue is returned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
"The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state," the Second Circuit said.
Current law indicates that the state has jurisdiction over someone outside the state if he or she "in person or through an agent" transacts any business within the state _ as long as the legal action arose from those New York transactions.
The court must determine if existing laws provide the state jurisdiction over someone in another country who sues a New Yorker. The court will also have to determine if interactions with New York state stemming from a foreign lawsuit qualify as doing business in the state. Specifically, whether Mahfouz conducted business in New York in his legal interactions with Ehrenfeld.
According to court documents, Bin Mahfouz argues that his actions in New York are not equivalent to doing business there, so he is not subject to the long-arm statute.
Bin Mahfouz's suit accused Ehrenfeld of libel in the High Court of Justice in London. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the British court to defend herself, and in 2005 it issued a default judgment against her. That judgment would require her to declare her writings about Bin Mahfouz to be false, publish a correction and apology, and enjoined her from publishing or authorizing further publication of the disputed statements in Britain, among other things.
"My immediate response was that I'm not going to acknowledge the court in England," Ehrenfeld said. "I'm an American ... If he wants to sue me, he should come to sue me in America."
In the federal lawsuit, Ehrenfeld has asked the court to declare that Bin Mahfouz could not win a claim of libel against her under U.S. law, making the English decision unenforceable in this country. The suit claims that Bin Mahfouz chose to sue Ehrenfeld in England because its libel laws favor plaintiffs, and warns his actions could lead to "libel tourism."
Ehrenfeld has said that her book cited Bin Mahfouz after her research revealed substantial credible evidence of his role as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.
He has sued or threatened to sue for defamation in the United Kingdom at least 29 times for statements concerning his role in the financing of terrorism, according to Ehrenfeld's lawsuit.
An undated statement issued on the Bin Mahfouz family Web site said: "The Bin Mahfouz family has suffered for over a year from unsubstantiated innuendo and inaccurate reporting (much of it corrected or withdrawn too late to be helpful). It is, naturally, distressed that it now faces many of the same untrue allegations in filed civil actions. The family repeats that it abhors and condemns all acts of terrorism and that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the actions and lengthy legal process involved. It will, of course, vigorously contest them." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ellison files brief in Supreme Court voter ID case
Legal Career News |
2007/11/16 11:25
|
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in a voter ID case. The Minnesota Democrat is asking the court to strike down an Indiana law that requires people to have a photo ID to vote, arguing it disenfranchises black voters. This is Ellison's latest effort to make his mark on voting rights issues. Last month, the freshman congressman introduced legislation that would ban the ID requirement in federal elections. Ellison filed the brief with the support of all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois. In the brief, Ellison argues that the tax violates the 24th Amendment's ban on poll or other taxes to vote. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|